Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 4, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 299

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Nation Recognition Act

Hon. M. Rankin

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. J. Osborne

A. Olsen

E. Ross

M. Lee

J. Rustad

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — HAIDA NATION

RECOGNITION

ACT

Hon. M. Rankin presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Haida Nation Recognition

Act.

Hon. M. Rankin: I am pleased to move that Bill 18, Haida Nation Recognition Act,

be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill enables the province to recognize the Haida Nation’s

inherent rights of governance and self-determination and recognizes the

legal status of the Council of the Haida Nation. It will recognize that

the Haida Nation will act through the Council of the Haida Nation as its

governing body.

The Council of the Haida Nation will have the powers and

capacities of a natural person. The legislation will also provide

immunities to Haida public officials in the performance of their

duties.

Lastly, the legislation will transfer agreements, assets,

liabilities and other obligations from the society known as the

Secretariat of the Haida Nation to the Council of the Haida Nation, and

the society will be dissolved under the Societies Act.

The secretariat will continue to operate under the Council of the

Haida Nation, consistent with the constitution of the Haida

Nation.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Haida Nation Recognition Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, Election

Amendment Act.

In Committee A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for

Ministry of Labour.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole to order.

We’re on Bill 11, Election Amendment Act.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: Prior to the lunch break, we were exploring, as part of the

general conversation here in

section 1, the fact that the government has

chosen not to incorporate a specific recommendation arising out of the

Chief Electoral Officer’s report relating to foreign interference in

B.C. elections. I just have a couple more questions about that. I think

my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has several questions as

well.

I just want to be clear about this, if we can, for the committee.

I’m not suggesting that the Attorney General said this, but I do want to

be clear. Did the Chief Electoral Officer ever suggest to the Attorney

General that he would prefer not to have the recommendations contained

in recommendation 2 and foreign influence dealt with? Did he ever make

that specific request of the Attorney or the government?

J. Sims: Asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Sims: It’s my great pleasure to introduce to you a friend who I met again

today at lunch time, Professor Chaman Lal. Professor Chaman Lal is here

visiting Surrey and the rest of the Lower Mainland. I have to say Surrey

first.

He has a PhD in Hindi literature. That’s his speciality. He is a

visiting professor at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad. He is a

professor at JNU University in Delhi. He’s the honorary adviser of the

Bhagat Singh Archives and Resource Centre. For those of you who don’t know,

Bhagat Singh was one of the freedom fighters that is associated with India

winning its independence.

[1:40 p.m.]

He also is president of the JNU Teachers Association and very close to

my heart because of his teaching credentials but also because of his

commitment to social justice and building a more equal world for

everyone.

Please help me welcome Professor Chaman Lal to the

chambers.

K. Greene: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Greene: I’d like to introduce Paul Bains. He’s a former vice-president of the

Canadian Auto Workers Union. He’s also a human rights activist and union

activist trying to make life better for all workers and our

communities.

He’s also my constituent, and my son and his granddaughter are friends

and classmates and enjoy each other’s company.

I’d just like to have everybody make him feel welcome.

M. Elmore: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Elmore: Joining the group today we have Santokh Dhesi, philanthropist, founder

of the Shaheed Bhagat Singh five-kilometre run. We also have Iqbal Puruwal,

president of the East Indian Defence Committee of British Columbia and also

a founding member of the Shaheed Bhagat Singh five-kilometre run, and the

understated but very accomplished Dr. Sandhu Singh, teacher, writer,

translator.

And with my mentor — also a shout-out — Paul Bains. He’s responsible

for me being here in this place. When I was a transit operator and an

activist, a job steward in the Canadian Auto Workers, he was vice-president

and took me under his wing. I attribute him and his leadership and guidance

and support for me being here in this place.

I ask everyone to please give a very warm welcome for all our

guests.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Sharma: I don’t think the…. Definitely the process is not as clear as what

the member’s question poses. It is a conversation with the Electoral

Officer and the work that we have to do that factors in many things in

the decision of prioritization. Keeping in mind that the next election

in October ’24 will be the first provincial election that takes place

with the 2019 voting modernization amendments in force and new electoral

districts and the changes that we proposed here.

When we talk about prioritization of what goes through in each

amendment, it has to factor in the discussions of the Chief Electoral

Officer about administrative and operational things that flow from each

of the decisions. It’s a more complicated decision-making process than

yes or no for each of the recommendations in the report, but we’re

always in conversation about what can be changed and fixed up over

time.

I just wanted to add to this conversation about foreign

interference with the various changes that have been made over time. The

way foreign interference shows up, just like any interference in our

election, is through direct actions, right, that would impact or show up

in the electoral process. The way you combat it is by strengthening up

your electoral process in general to make sure that there are

restrictions in place that would limit that, and we’ve been doing that

since 2017.

Of course it shows our commitment to our electoral process. In

2017 we restricted sponsorship and political donations to B.C. residents

and Canadian citizens. There is a restriction in there that only

Canadian citizens can run and hold office. There are strict limits on

spending for third parties, which was more changes in 2017, and a whole

bunch of transparency obligations.

A zero threshold for third parties to register if they’re going to

be doing advertising, and this is another step. This is combating one

particular way to interfere with election, which is through

disinformation. Also in this bill is insurance that there’s independence

between the third party advertisers and the candidates.

All of these as a whole since 2017 are a very strong response. I

think we’re the first in Canada to take any action on disinformation in

our election. It’s a strong response to make sure any actor that tries

to interfere with our elections, whether they’re local or foreign, are

going to face restrictions and barriers. It’s a continual process. We’ll

always be thinking about different ways to change our elections in

B.C.

[1:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’m gratified to hear and learn that the Attorney has some general

thoughts on the issue of foreign interference that she’s prepared to

share with the committee, and I expect my colleague from

Vancouver-Langara will want to avail himself of the invitation to have

more of that conversation. I pledge, though, to restrict my questions,

and I intend to do that.

I am going to be particular about one aspect of this, and that is

in the context of a report from the Chief Electoral Officer that informs

this legislation that contains a very specific assessment of risk and

very specific recommendations about how to address and minimize that

risk of foreign interference.

The Attorney General can confirm that the ultimate decision on

prioritizing which recommendations will be proceeded with and be dealt

with in the legislation, and which will not, will have to await future

legislative initiatives. That ultimate decision is made by the

government and, in this case, by the Attorney General. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, that’s true.

M. de Jong: With that in mind, then, is it fair for me to…. In the case of the

2020 report, the Attorney General is satisfied that the recommendations

dealing with the risk of foreign interference ranked in priority behind

recommendations that were specifically addressed in the legislation —

for example, expanding the scope and transparency of third-party

advertising requirements. The Attorney was satisfied that that was a

bigger priority than addressing the risk of foreign

interference.

Hon. N. Sharma: I am just going to challenge the premise of the question a little

bit.

What we do in our prioritization exercise with the Chief Electoral

Officer is identify the biggest concerns that the Chief Electoral

Officer has and the achievability of putting it into the next election.

What the Chief Electoral Officer identified through that process was the

rise of disinformation and its impact on our elections and asking for

better tools to do that. Now that includes foreign interference through

disinformation.

This legislation doesn’t rank whether or not I believe this is a

bigger threat or that is; it addresses a challenge, whether it’s a

foreign interference actor or a local actor re­lated to

disinformation in the election, which was seen as something that was

identified and rising and needed to be addressed. We’re the first

jurisdiction in Canada to do so.

M. de Jong: I have read into the record the risk and the concerns that the

Chief Electoral Officer identified in the report that gave rise to six

specific recommendations, four of which are addressed specifically in

the legislation.

[1:55 p.m.]

I haven’t, to this point, referred to the recommendations, but I

guess I will because the Attorney, I think, wants to leave the

impression that somehow another way has been found to deal with the

general concern and that there is overlap and misinformation from a

foreign source. But these recommendations are very specific and relate

to a risk that the Chief Electoral Officer identified.

He recommended that, firstly, all individuals and organizations

that sponsor third party advertising be a resident of B.C. if they are

an individual or be a registered organization within B.C. that has one

or more directors who reside in B.C. if they’re an organization; that

they be required to open a separate sponsorship account for all

transactions if they sponsor election advertising with a total value of

more than $500; that they be required to purchase advertising in

Canadian funds from a Canadian bank account; that there be laws

prohibiting advertising platforms from accepting election advertising

from foreign or out-of-prov­ince entities; and finally, limit the

amount of self-funding for third party advertising sponsors to a

reasonable amount.

That’s the collection of very specific recommendations that the

Chief Electoral Officer identified to address a very specific risk that

he wrote about separately in his report and identified under a separate

heading of risk relating to foreign interference. I do not see anywhere

in Bill 11 any provisions that would address any of those specific

recommendations the Chief Electoral Officer offered to address that

risk.

If I’m mistaken, the Attorney can tell me, but will she point to

the sections of the bill that address those recommendations provided by

the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. N. Sharma: I have answered this question before about the very particular

recommendations and portion of the report the member brings up. I’ll say

it again. It’s a prioritization process we had to make in terms of what

we needed to move forward on in this particular amendment to the

Election Act before the next election. That does not mean that the rest

of the recommendation or the recommendations particularly that the

member raised are not something we won’t do in the future, that we won’t

add to the electoral act in the future.

M. de Jong: We are drawing perilously close to a meeting of the minds on this.

My only suggestion here is that the evidence suggests that the

government and now the Attorney prioritized other areas and other

recommendations.

I referred to the recommendation around expanding the scope and

transparency of third-party advertising requirements, that the

government concluded that that was more of a priority today than the

recommendations around protecting against foreign influence. Similarly,

for the recommendation to ensure digital platform compliance with the

Election Act the decision was made that that is a greater priority today

than addressing the risk around foreign interference.

I think the Attorney General has confirmed that, but I want to be

clear. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not suggesting at

this point that the Attorney or the government have ruled out coming

back to these recommendations. I don’t think I’ve ever made that

suggestion. I am suggesting that there is evidence before us in the

guise of Bill 11 that the Attorney and the government attached a greater

priority to those other areas and chose to proceed with them and a

lesser priority to the recommendations dealing with foreign interference

or the risk of foreign interference.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll say again, just to make it clear, that it’s correct that it’s

a prioritization exercise just like any drafting of legislation, but

it’s informed by what’s happening and what the Chief Electoral Officer

tells us. I think — as I mentioned before, and we’ve all seen — that

disinformation, whether it’s through foreign interference or local

interference, has been on the rise and actually happening in B.C. and

other jurisdictions. The Chief Electoral Officer had asked for better

tools to combat that disinformation.

So that is a very substantial step into preventing types of

interference with respect to the very particular recommendations that

the member raises. That is exactly, as I mentioned before, part of the

ongoing work we need to do with the Chief Electoral Officer to see how

we can continue to strengthen our Elections Act going

forward.

The Chair: I’ve heard that three times, so I’m going to suggest that we

move on to another line of questioning.

Recognizing the member.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, as always for the guidance.

When we get to, as inevitably we will, the sections of the bill

dealing with misinformation, I think we’ll discover that they relate to

very limited forms of misinformation. We can canvass that in more

detail.

I’m simply going to say this before ceding my place to the member

for Vancouver-Langara. I accept that there is, as always, an exercise in

prioritization that needs to take place. I’m not sure I agree, in this

instance, with the lower priority that the Attorney and the government

have attached to this particular recommendation.

All of us in this place in particular are alive, and many other

Canadians and British Columbians, to the concerns that have been

expressed around the overall integrity of the electoral system in Canada

and, by extension, here in British Columbia. We’ve had an example just

in the last few days here at the Assembly where concerns have been

expressed about attempts by foreign jurisdictions to exercise undue

influence on our political process.

I think my task at the moment is to ensure that the record shows

that, while I fully understand it is for the government and the Attorney

to establish priorities and proceed on that basis, I don’t agree, in

this case, with the decision they’ve made to not address the specific

risk identified by the Chief Electoral Officer in one of the two reports

that really did inform the bill and the contents of the bill that are

before us.

But with those comments — I’m not sure the Attorney has to respond

unless she wishes to — I think my colleague will have some questions for

her.

M. Lee: I appreciate my colleague, the member for Abbotsford West, for

extending the opportunity here at the committee stage on this

bill.

Both the member for Abbotsford West and myself spoke at length —

as I would expect the Attorney General would recognize — at second

reading on this bill, in terms of Bill 11, about the considerations that

the member for Abbotsford West has spelled out and had some responses

from the Attorney General for and for which I’ve also made comment in my

second reading speech.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ve certainly listened carefully to the exchanges be­tween

the member for Abbotsford West and the Attorney General and have a few

other additional questions that I’d like to approach with the Attorney

General.

Let me just first say that there’s recognition here that this is

the opportunity. The Attorney General has mentioned that for

administrative and operational considerations, the approach on

prioritizing the six recommendations coming out of the May 2020 report

with the Chief Electoral Officer was done with that in mind. Meaning, as

the Attorney General states, there’s the further implementation of the

amendments from 2019, of course, the electoral boundaries redistribution

and the amendments that are set out in this bill.

But I do think that just for that same very reason, this is an

important committee discussion, as we consider in this chamber the

further amendments to the Election Act of this province because, as the

minister and the Attorney General just indicated, this is our last

opportunity before the next election. So with that in mind, I appreciate

that the Attorney General has confirmed to the member from Abbotsford

West that the amendments that are proposed in Bill 11 stem from the two

reports from Elections B.C., the May 2020 and May 2022

reports.

I know that in discussions here we’ve been focused on

recommendation No. 2. But the reason why the May 2020 report is of

importance is because even in the lead-in to this report, recognizing

the Attorney General has confirmed that this report forms the

legislative foundation and framework for these amendments in Bill 11, it

refers to three different threats: foreign interference, deliberate

disinformation campaigns and anonymous digital advertising.

In that first paragraph of this report, in the executive

summary

on page one, the statement is: “While these threats have not been widely

observed in British Columbia, the risks they present in our electoral

process are real.” That’s a direct quote.

I’m going to come back to this point in a moment, but let me make

one more point just at the outset. The view that we take here, as

articulated in our second reading speeches, is that since 2016 there has

been a sea change of risk that is identified and spoken to as you read

on in the report of Elections B.C. There is certainly recognition, for

example, of the 2016 U.S. presidential election where there is a direct

quote from special counsel Robert Mueller, who stated that the Russian

government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and

systemic fashion.

The same considerations and concerns relating to the 2016 Brexit

referendum, where campaign finance provisions, harvested data,

misleading online advertising by a British Columbia–based firm,

Aggregate I.Q., and Cambridge Analytica, a British consulting firm….

These were the bodies that were behind, it is alleged, those misleading

campaigns in Brexit 2016.

It’s the same involvements globally that…. When we say digital

communications and disinformation, we recognize that the recommendations

that are being incorporated in the amendments to the Election Act

recognize the global changing nature of pressures and risks that state

governments — whether in Russia, China or Iran, for example — are

interfering.

[2:10 p.m.]

Concerns of interference and influence in our democratic

processes, including in the U.S. and Canada — that is a risk. Let me

ask…. The Attorney General referenced repeatedly, in response to the

member for Abbotsford West, that the Chief Electoral Officer was not

able to cite any documented evidence of foreign interference.

Is that the test that government was using, when it was going

through the considerations of priorities with the Chief Electoral

Officer: that there needed to be documented evidence, first, of foreign

interference, before this government would address the risks of foreign

interference?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to start by saying that, again, as I’ve been saying

since we’ve been on this clause for a few hours now, it’s very unusual

to be speaking about something that’s not in a piece of legislation,

instead of what is in the legislation, before what we’ve talked

about.

I would say to the question that, no, there is not a test. I think

there’s ample evidence that I’ve laid out, since 2017, of the changes

that we’ve made — including, in 2017, restricting sponsorship and

political contributions from anybody outside of B.C. or Canada. That’s

an example of something. We’ve been continually improving our elections,

to strengthen them against any interference.

M. Lee: The six recommendations that are set out in this report, four of

which…. Again, we haven’t gotten to that detail just yet in terms of how

the other four recommendations, specifically, are incorporated in the

bill. I’m sure that that will arise during this committee

discussion.

Assuming for the moment, and perhaps the Attorney General can

confirm, that the other four recommendations are incorporated in this

bill, it’s important that we understand the interaction between all six

recommendations as to why, for discussion purposes here, only four of

the six recommendations were actually prioritized to be incorporated

into this bill at this time, when we’re talking about three different

categories of risk.

First, I’d like the Attorney General to confirm that the other

four recommendations are incorporated into this bill. Secondly, does

this government recognize the risk of foreign interference, beyond

documented evidence? Is it the case that this government needs to have

documented evidence in order to act on recommendations 2 and

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, we’re talking about something that’s not actually in the

legislation. But I will go through, first of all, to say that since

2017, as I mentioned before, our government has been taking action,

through legislative reform, to make our elections stronger and prevent

interference from all bodies, including foreign interference. That

includes up to what you see today, which is disinformation — which, I

think, as most people understand, has been on the rise and affecting our

elections. There are clear examples of that.

This steps into the space of preventing parties, organizations or

people, including foreign bodies, from interfering with disinformation

on elections. It is something we take seriously as a

government.

With respect to recommendations, it’s not so clear to list out, in

a kind of check box manner, what we’re implementing and what we’re not.

We’re making substantial progress on a lot of the recommendations in the

report. How that shows up…. There are many sub-recommendations under the

main recommendations. I think it’s fair to say that we’re making

substantial progress on a majority of the recommendations in the report,

but there’s always more work to do.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General has responded, as she did in

even the closure on second reading, in that way.

The concern is where we’re at. This is not an election-by-election

type of situation. The pace of the threat and change globally is very

rapid. As we’ve seen with concerns expressed by Canadian Security

Intelligence bodies about the last two federal elections and the last

municipal election in Vancouver, it would be surprising that British

Columbia, in its provincial election, is not subject to the same level

of risk.

I don’t hear the Attorney General suggesting that, necessarily,

but we’ve gone from not focusing on documented evidence, I believe, to

an acknowledgment of risk, unless the Attorney General clarifies that.

If that’s the case, it would be, certainly, a prudent view for this

government to take it that Elections B.C., as the Attorney General

referred to earlier in a previous response, needs every tool. That would

have been to provide Elections B.C. with all six

recommendations.

[2:20 p.m.]

For example, why I say that is this. One of the recommendations

that we understand…. Perhaps, again, I’d ask the Attorney General

confirm that the other four recommendations — meaning 1, 4, 5 and 6 —

are incorporated into this bill.

If that’s the case, then recommendation No. 1, in the lead-up

language to that assessment and recommendation itself, refers to, again,

the U.S. presidential election of 2016 and that there were many examples

of voter suppression and disinformation tactics that can negatively

impact the fairness of an election.

It gives an example of a well-known celebrity, Aziz Ansari — I

certainly appreciate his work and his comedy — as someone who was there

with a doctored image in his image, published by a fake Russian account

in a tweet during the 2016 U.S. election. This is an example that

Elections B.C. is citing. This is the example of a cross-section between

recommendation No. 1 and recommendation No. 2.

Yet what we have before us in this bill are recommendations to

deal with deliberate disinformation, as the Attorney General has

indicated, but not with the other counterpart tool, which is to directly

bring out and require that an organization that is sponsoring

third-party advertising be a B.C. resident, open a separate sponsorship

account and purchase advertising dollars in Canadian funds from a

Canadian bank account.

There clearly are tools here structurally that would also deal

with the attempts to spread disinformation, when you can act to restrict

a foreign actor, a body that is acting on behalf of a foreign player.

This is exactly why, as you look through the recommendations, it’s

important for us to have a good understanding as to why this government

has decided not to implement recommendation No. 2. This is not something

I believe our democracy and our electoral system can wait…. There are

clearly threats internationally, domestically and in this

province.

Does the Attorney General not see the importance of also dealing

with foreign interference as it relates to disinformation?

Hon. N. Sharma: We are taking action on disinformation when it comes to foreign

interference, and I can go through the various elements of the bill,

once we get to it, that do that.

The specific examples the member provides, and he provided a few

where there was a foreign actor spreading disinformation in an election,

are exactly why we changed the legislation with the guidance of the

Chief Electoral Officer to give him tools to be able to respond,

including takedown tools and enforcement provisions for the spread of

that disinformation.

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I would suggest that is only one tool or set of tools that is

specifically designed to deal with disinformation in the way that it’s

expressed in this bill. Of course, we’ll get to that

section through the

member from Abbotsford West.

In terms of other tools to deal with foreign interference that are

clearly set out under recommendation No. 2, those tools are being left

out of this act, which means the ability…. I think there is a…. It

sounds to me, from the Attorney General, that there has been some sort

of underestimation, let’s say, of the challenge in front of the Chief

Electoral Officer — the fact that there is a rapid, changing nature of

this.

This is since…. We’re talking about, of course, recommendations

that were set out in a May of 2020 report, almost three years ago. So

the time to actually consider and implement changes clearly has been

there, but for the fact that we went into a snap election in the middle

of the pandemic, in September and October 2020. Other than that

interruption of focus, there has been almost three years for

consideration of the necessary changes while more indications of risk

have certainly been identified. Again, we continue to see that in this

country.

This is the reason why it’s important we have an indication here

from the Attorney General in this government as to why these particular

recommendations to deal with foreign interference are not being dealt

with by this bill. It seems to me that it is out of…. One can talk about

priorities and what’s doable, but I think the government is

underestimating the level of risk.

Given the reliance upon Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral

Officer in the discussions to determine the priorities over the last

three years since his report and since the second report in May of 2022,

is the Attorney General aware of any other third-party input to the

Chief Electoral Officer to assess the risk, meaning has there been any

access to his federal government counterparts — Foreign Affairs, the

Canadian security agency, CSIS? Has there been any discussion of any

nature that assesses the further risk to our province in our electoral

process?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I believe the member’s question was whether or not the CEO was

having conversations with CSIS. That’s not something I know about or can

talk about in the House and, certainly, is outside the scope of the

legislation that we’re talking about here today.

M. Lee: What other assessments has the government done on the risk of

foreign interference to the electoral process in British

Columbia?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have a very rigorous process in B.C. with our elections. I

think this bill is an example of that.

After each election, the Chief Electoral Officer will analyze the

election, including any risks that appeared. Some of the reports that

we’ve been talking about today are an example of that. And what they

have is a legislature that responds to that risk by amending the

legislation constantly to address that.

I’ll just remind the member of 2017 changes that restricted any

political donations from people that were B.C. residents and Canadian

citizens. We’ve been constantly changing and updating the elections to

respond to risk, and we’ll continue to do that.

M. Lee: I think we’ve canvassed the understanding of the Attorney General

as she presents this bill in this House.

The Attorney General has heard the concerns expressed by the

member for Abbotsford West and myself as to the lack of estimation

around the level of risk that is occurring with this bill in terms of

not incorporating recommendation No. 2, for the reasons that are set out

in the report itself by the Chief Electoral Officer. I haven’t really

heard any good reason, other than practicality, in terms of

administrative and operational considerations, over a three-year period,

which seems less than satisfactory when we’re talking about the level of

risk that continues to increase, year over year, since this report has

been written and tabled.

It’s my view that the government and this Legislative Assembly

can’t continue to play catch-up on something that is emerging in the way

that it is. I’m quite concerned about the level of risk from foreign

interference and influence in our electoral process. I’m going to…. I

think the Attorney General has heard that comment repeatedly, as you

know, Madam Chair.

At this point, I’m just going to turn it back over to my colleague

the member for Abbotsford West. I know that we have some other

considerations here, in terms of this report from May of

M. de Jong: The other recommendation noteworthy for the lack of attention it’s

attracting in the legislation before us is from the CEO. It’s, again, in

his report of 2020, where he recommended increased transparency around

I must confess…. As I said in the second reading remarks, I embark

upon any kind of a conversation about this with some measure of

trepidation. But I think the Attorney General understands what the

nature of the questioning will be here.

Again, the Chief Electoral Officer has identified what he sees as

technology. I’ll ask the general question for the Attorney. Does she

share that concern, as expressed by the CEO, around the misuse of

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I will again say…. This is outside the scope of what’s contained

in the legislation that we’re discussing.

I can tell the member that the analysis that my team did with

respect to bots found that this type of behaviour is likely addressed by

a law that has broader application, rather than under the

election-specific context. The use of bots to generate and amplify

companies’ policies. If detected, companies remove the offending

accounts.

Like I said before, all the recommendations from the CEO in those

reports are still being considered by government. This is just, if you

think of it, one response, in a continued response, to the

reports.

M. de Jong: Well, for the record, then, here is a

summary of what the Chief

Electoral Officer said in his report.

continues: “But they can also be used by malicious actors to

artificially elevate content and influence voter behaviour.”

He goes on, a little further down, on page 13 of his report:

message — at an inhuman rate. Bots can produce over 600 messages a day,

which equates to posting a new message every minute for ten hours

straight.”

He then goes on to talk about the technical challenges in

regulating automated activity online but points to California laws that

have been passed to make it illegal to communicate with individuals

online via bots to sell products or influence a vote in an election,

unless it makes clear that the account communicating is

automated.

He actually points to a piece of legislation that was passed by

the government prior to 2020, prior to the Attorney’s arrival here, Bill

27, in 2019. The Ticket Sales Act prohibits the use of automated

software to secure tickets for resale.

He then has this to say: “Currently the Election Act does not

require an election ad to state that it was published by a bot. To

ensure that voters know they are communicating with an automated

program, election advertisements that use bots should be required to

disclose their automated nature. This would help voters make informed

decisions.”

He follows up with two recommendations. One is: “Require social

media bots that publish election advertising, as defined by the Election

Act, to disclose their automated nature.”

I’ll stop there and simply ask the Attorney General to confirm two

things. One, under the existing act, there is nothing that requires a

automated nature. Secondly, there is nothing in the amendments before

disclose their automated nature.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: With our changes to the legislation with respect to

disinformation, if a bot is spreading disinformation, of course, that

would just be exponentially at a faster rate. The Chief Electoral

Officer has the takedown provisions and the enforcement provisions

related to that effort. That’s probably, you would think, about the most

disruptive use of a bot when it comes to interfering with an election,

with the spreading of disinformation.

With respect to, I think, the second question, I have given my

answer about our analysis about whether broader legislation was needed

policies.

M. de Jong: The second specific recommendation from the Chief Electoral

Officer is that amendments be incorporated into the act that “require

the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature to be clear and unambiguous,

so that any reasonable person would know they are communicating with a

bot.” Does

section 1 or any other

section of the bill before us, once

enacted, require the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature so that a

person would know they are communicating with a bot?

Hon. N. Sharma: Same answer as before. Our team is still working through the

recommendations with relation to bots and our answer to those

recommendations and whether it needs to be broader.

M. de Jong: I’m going to say this sort of parenthetically. There have been

times during this debate and in previous bills where I have appreciated

the fact that the Attorney has been prepared to get up and answer a

question in a forthright manner. I mean, the answer is no. There is

nothing in this legislation that requires the disclosure of a bot’s

automated nature to be clear so that a reasonable person would know

they’re communicating with a bot. And the Attorney…. What follows from

that is: the government may consider something like that in the

future.

I think this is worth saying. The Chief Electoral Officer is

worried that people are being inundated with messages that are made to

appear that they come from a human being and come from a machine. He’s

worried that that is having an adverse impact on voter

behaviour.

I know my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has a few questions.

I’m simply going to ask this. This use or, as the Chief Electoral

going to diminish. It is going to become more prolific. There is nothing

to prevent the misuse of having communications with people and making it

appear that it’s a human being when it’s not. The Chief Electoral

Officer sees that as a problem. It’s a bigger problem when it’s

misinformation, I’ll grant you that.

[2:45 p.m.]

But the Chief Electoral Officer says that it’s a problem that

people think they’re talking to a human being, and they’re not. It

strikes me that that is something that it would have been worthwhile to

address. As we have discovered from other exchanges, apparently that’s

not going to happen until sometime after another electoral exercise in

B.C. That is a choice that the government and the Attorney General have

made. I think it’s a regrettable choice. It does, obviously, speak to

priorities.

If I’m wrong…. If somewhere in Bill 11, or somewhere in the

existing act, there are provisions that make it clear that you’re

entitled to know if you’re talking to a bot, then I’m all ears. But that

is not the Chief Electoral Officer’s impression, nor is it

mine.

Hon. N. Sharma: Same answer. No, there’s no direct provision, as I mentioned, and

we’re working on it. It’s complicated how bots show up in elections, and

it may require broader legislation. This is what I mentioned

before.

If you think about it, in some ways, our advertising rules require

transparency of who is advertising and who paid for that advertising.

The disinformation provisions will allow, whether it’s a bot or not,

there to be a takedown provision of the spread of

disinformation.

As I mentioned before, there’s broader work that needs to be done

on bots and how they show up and what we can do to make sure they are

identified.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to again join the member for

Abbotsford West in this line of questioning. This, of course, stems from

recommendation 3 not being addressed in Bill 11.

As the Attorney General has referred to, there are other elements

of the bill that she is suggesting, in some ways, whether it’s takedowns

or otherwise, regulation of disinformation. That would be one way of

getting at these concerns.

Here we have another example, a critical one, of a tool. It’s a

tool for which…. As we’ve seen, as set out on page 13 of the May 2020

report, where the Chief Electoral Officer spells out that foreign

influence is also a concern….

“Twitter accounts linked to Russia, Iran and Venezuela have

attempted to influence conversations on contentious issues, such as

pipelines and immigration, during and between federal election campaigns

in Canada. Some of these accounts were automated.”

The link, which is included in the report in footnote 42, refers

to an

article in the media which did an analysis of 9.6 million tweets.

That review in the 2019 period indicated the level of troll accounts

that were suspected of having originated in Russia, Iran and

Venezuela.

This, I believe, is the concern that the Chief Electoral Officer

is speaking to, which includes a report in 2019 that “Russian trolls

appeared to be trying to sow division among Canadians by tweeting

provocative statements on hot-button issues like refugees and

immigration.”

[2:50 p.m.]

This is a separate recommendation in the report. As much as the

Attorney General suggests that there are other mechanisms in the bill

that we have in front of us and that address similar types of concerns,

the fact of the matter is that the Chief Electoral Officer has spelled

out a set of separate recommendations, as the member for Abbotsford West

read into the record.

When we’re talking about the volume of automation that foreign

state governments appear to have been attempting to use to influence

election processes in the United States and Canada, is the Attorney

General satisfied that the Chief Electoral Officer has the tools

necessary to address this concern?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I answered this previously, but I’ll repeat it: it’s

complicated when it comes to addressing bots, and we’re doing further

analysis on what’s needed on that.

For example, there are Charter rights that are implicated,

potentially. There are tools that are needed, and an ever-changing

technology. So although it’s very clear that we’ve given the Chief

Electoral Officer takedown provisions when there’s a spread of

disinformation, whether they’re bots or not, there’s more work to be

done with respect to how we address bots in general. That may be broader

than this piece of legislation.

M. Lee: The complicated nature of this also demonstrates the fact that

foreign state actors can exploit the complex nature of trying to

regulate this area, which is the reason why the Chief Electoral Officer

has set out specific recommendations that require disclosure.

Well, let me let me just ask the Attorney General. Earlier, of

course, we were discussing, at length, with the member for Abbotsford

West, the phases of development of this bill and the discussions that

were had with the Chief Electoral Officer. When it came to consideration

of these specific recommendations, what was the understanding that the

Attorney General, or members of her team here, had, as to why the Chief

Electoral Officer was making these specific recommendations around

disclosure of bots and their activities?

Hon. N. Sharma: I believe the question is: why is the Chief Electoral Officer

making the recommendations? In response, I’d say it’s pretty clearly

laid out in the report. The member has articulated that by quoting the

report. I’ll just leave it in the Chief Electoral Officer’s own words in

the report.

M. Lee: This is the reason why, of course, we’re spending this amount of

time reviewing the words of the Chief Electoral Officer in the report —

words, discussions, points and recommendations that the Chief Electoral

Officer is making and that this government has chosen not to implement.

What we’re trying to address is getting a good understanding as to why

this government has chosen not to regulate and deal with recommendations

around foreign interference, as well as to increase transparency around

[2:55 p.m.]

By invitation of the Attorney General to re-read the report, I can

read the report again, which actually ad­dresses the point that

the Attorney General made in the second previous response to my

question, which was recognizing that “though it may be technically

challenging, regulating automated activity online is possible.” That’s a

direct quote from the report.

The Attorney General referred to other considerations, but the

Chief Electoral Officer, in response, would say, “British Columbia

recently passed Bill 27,” in 2019, almost four years ago. It was already

mentioned by the member for Abbotsford West, the Ticket Sales Act. When

I look at the Ticket Sales Act, it’s a fairly comprehensive act,

including court proceedings.

I would have thought that the Attorney General of this province,

in tabling that bill, would have done the necessary review, with his

legal team and other internal counsel at the Attorney General Ministry,

to ensure that it complies with the Charter rights of British

Columbians. I would have thought that that work has already taken place,

which is the reason why the Chief Electoral Officer is saying that

regulating this type of online automated activity is possible: because

it has been done before in this province under that act.

Again, having addressed it from the words of the Chief Electoral

Officer in the Elections B.C. report, as the Attorney General just asked

me to do, can I ask: why has the government chosen not to implement

these two specific recommendations to increase disclosure around social

media bots?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I’ve mentioned before, it’s because we believe, through our

analysis, that more work needs to be done in deciding how to respond to

bots and whether it may be broader legislation that is

needed.

The quote, read by the member, from the Chief Electoral Officer

also says how complicated it is to regulate this type of activity —

particularly when it comes to elections, when Charter rights and freedom

of expression are implicated — in the context of a debate during a part

of our democracy.

M. Lee: I will say that there are other precedents in other countries —

including the state of California, which is referred to, of course —

that have had similar statutes to deal with bots, as well, in the

context of influencing a vote in an election.

Let me just say this, though, before turning it back over to my

friend the member for Abbotsford West. The considerations that we’ve

heard in this chamber around recom­mendation 2 and recommendation

3 not being adopted and implemented for this bill, are truly concerning,

as we see the continued rise of the challenges of foreign influence and

foreign interference in electoral processes and other conduct on issues

by governments in our country.

This is a huge concern. It’s a huge concern that was addressed and

spelled out through specific recommendations three years ago. As we’ve

talked about in our second reading speeches as well, the former Leader

of the Official Opposition, Andrew Wilkinson, put forward a private

member’s bill to address foreign influence. That is also cited and

recognized and acknowledged by this report in May of 2020.

It recognizes that the official opposition had advocated and

brought forward legislative changes to address foreign interference in

various aspects of public policy, including electoral legislation. That

included penalties and fines.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is not a new issue. This was being addressed four years ago

by the official opposition, three years ago by the Chief Electoral

Officer in this province. I’m very concerned, with other members of our

caucus here, as we see the continued rapid nature and developments that

we’re seeing, not just in the last number of weeks and months. They date

back to 2016 in the United States and the U.K., and now in this

country.

This is not a choice. When government makes a choice to only

implement certain tools and not others, we’re really, truly hamstringing

our Chief Electoral Officer, in terms of the ability of the CEO and

Elections B.C. to ensure the fundamental integrity of our democratic

process.

I know the Attorney General has heard, through many lines of

questioning here…. I think we’ve clearly expressed our concerns. We’ve

heard responses from the Attorney General on behalf of the government as

to why they chose not to proceed with those recommendations.

I think they’re very concerning. I’m very concerned that what has

happened now is, as we look at the rest of this bill, as we get through

the rest of

section 1, that we are vulnerable. We continue to be

vulnerable for the reasons that are spelled out in the

report.

So with those concerns again tabled here, I just invite and turn

it back over to my colleague the member for Abbotsford West, unless the

Attorney General chooses to respond any further to my further

concerns.

Hon. N. Sharma: In response, I’d just like to say that this government, in a very

unprecedented way, especially with this bill, has been taking action

since 2017 when it comes to strengthening our elections, taking the

risks seriously on our election campaigns and always responding to the

Chief Electoral Officer.

In 2017, we restricted sponsorship and political contributions to

residents of B.C. and Canada. We restricted limits on third-party

advertising. We increased transparency when it came to who was

advertising and how. We’ve continually responded, and this is another

example of our response with disinformation, strengthening our ability

to make our elections fair.

With that, we’ll move on to the next member.

M. de Jong: We’ll get to some of the other provisions of clause 1, only to

say…. The evolution of election law takes place, as the Attorney said,

on an ongoing basis. Sometimes they come undone.

It was a remarkable step, some 20-plus years ago, when B.C. became

the first government in the country to eliminate the manipulation of

election dates. We talk about manipulation, and that was a practice that

governments of all political stripes thought was their right.

I remember, when that happened, attending a federal-provincial

meeting a few weeks later and being accosted by other ministers from

other provinces, saying: “Have you lost your mind?” The ability for

incumbent governments to manipulate when a date was to political

advantage — that served the province pretty well. Regrettably, I’m not

sure it’s on as solid a foundation today as it once was, but there have

been these changes over time.

I think the message from the member from Langara and me today,

which I am ever-hopeful the Attorney recognizes, is that there are

infrequent opportunities to address election laws, especially as it

relates to oncoming electoral contests. We think that an opportunity has

been missed here, with respect to two pretty important recommendations

from the CEO.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Attorney has said: “Fear not. We may yet get to them.” But I

think we’ve also heard that if we do get to them, it will be after

another electoral contest and not before. That is something that the

Attorney and the committee has, I hope, heard us express our concerns

about and dissatisfaction with.

The remainder of

section 1 includes a new definition: authorized

drop-off locations. I understand that the issue here was, in the past

election…. This relates to mail-in ballots. Having these drop-off

locations was authorized by OIC. But what we’re trying to do is create a

specific authority for either the district electoral officer or the

Chief Electoral Officer to designate these drop-off locations. They are

specifically for mail-in ballots. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: I won’t do it here, but at some point, I’m going to ask the

Attorney…. Let me just make sure I’m cross-referencing.

Maybe I will do it here, because we’re talking about mail-in

voting packages. Just have a quick, general conversation. We don’t have

to do it later in the act, later in the statute, when we get to other

technical provisions.

There have always been mail-in voting packages. It became a much

larger feature of the election landscape in 2020 for reasons that we’re

all familiar with. There are provisions in the act about how to acquire

a mail-in voting package in

section 105; how to get a replacement

mail-in, and I think those provisions are amended later in this act; and

how to vote using a mail-in package. So it’s all laid out

there.

But for reasons that will become apparent later in this bill, can

the Attorney give a little bit of an overview? There are different kinds

of mail-in ballots. There is a mail-in ballot that contains the names of

all of the candidates in an electoral district. We’ll call that a sort

of conventional mail-in ballot.

Then there’s a mail-in ballot that is a write-in ballot, where a

voter is obliged to do certain things. Can the Attorney explain, for the

purposes of this and other sections, the difference? What distinguishes

whether a voter will get a mail-in ballot that is complete with the

names of candidates and identifies candidates and a mail-in ballot that

is blank and requires write-in provisions?

Some of it, I’m sure, has to do with the timing of when it’s

requested, but maybe the Attorney can provide that overview of those two

different kinds of mail-in ballots.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The way it works is that if it is before a nomination race has

been completed, so they don’t know the names of the candidates, then it

would be a write-in ballot. But if it’s after the nomination has been

completed, it would be a conventional ballot.

M. de Jong: An application for a mail-in voting package, we know, in

section

105, can be made up to four hours before the time set by a separate

section. How early can you get a mail-in voting package? Must it be

during the writ period, during the pre-election period? How early can a

person obtain a mail-in voting package?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have an answer from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer

on this one of how it rolls out. Of course, mail-in ballots are by

request. When an election is called, it’s that time period that they

solicit, Elections B.C. to the Chief Electoral Officer, whether people

want a mail-in ballot, and then they’re sent out. It’s around that time,

I guess, that mail-in ballots are sent out.

Sometimes it’s several weeks before if it’s a fixed election date,

because people know what the date is and they may ask, so they may

accommodate for mailing times and something like that. This is more of

an operational accommodation to make sure it gets to them on

time.

M. de Jong: It doesn’t sound like there’s a legislated or regulated date. It

sounds like the Chief Electoral Officer is vested with the authority to

determine when the appropriate time is to begin responding to

applications for a mail-in ballot. Have I got that essentially

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: From the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff that are letting us know,

it’s related to the timing of an election. Mail-in ballots they would

provide to people when it’s around an election time. It doesn’t make

sense if it’s years ahead of time. Operationally, it’s always

associated, in my understanding, with an election period.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I didn’t mean for this to be contentious.

It doesn’t sound like there’s a specified date before which a

mail-in ballot can’t be applied for. It sounds like, though, the advice

from the Chief Electoral Officer is they’re not likely to respond to a

request for a mail-in ballot until we’re in a writ period.

Hon. N. Sharma: A circumstance…. This is an operational thing, as the member said.

It’s based on making sure fairness and mail-in ballots come to people on

time. So although it’s not a legislated timeline, there may be

situations where, to accommodate for mailing time and it’s a fixed

election date, you might send a mail-in ballot a couple of weeks in

advance of the writ period.

That’s a decision that’s left up to the Chief Electoral Officer

and their team to figure out — fairness and making sure it gets out

there. I mean, generally speaking, mail-in ballots are associated and

requested during the election period.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’ll try to lump together a few of these questions to move us

through this.

The Attorney is fully aware that participation rates in elections

at all levels of government continue, sadly, to fall in this country.

Does the government view a mail-in voting process, mail-in ballots, as a

possible means and a possible contributor to reversing that trend? And

does it, therefore, seek to purposely promote the use of mail-in

ballots, or is this just another option?

I’m sure the minister is going to say she recognizes the challenge

of declining participation rates. But is what follows…? Is there a

purposeful attempt to draw on the mail-in ballot option to try and

reverse that trend?

Hon. N. Sharma: So 2020, which is our last kind of view with this, is an

exceptional year because of COVID. We did see an increase in mail-in

ballots during that time period, but we don’t know — right? — if that’s

going to be…. So I think it wouldn’t be that we’re promoting one way of

voting over the other. We’re trying to make all voting accessible and

available to people in general. And of course, we’re always hopeful that

more people will vote if you do that.

A lot of the provisions that we will go through are from what we

learned about the mail-in ballot process to make it better because it

was new. So much was new during 2020 because of the COVID experience and

people using that way to vote.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s hard to know. I think our position, like I mentioned, is to

promote all types of voting, including…. There are some provisions in

here for people that have mobility issues, actually making it easier for

them.

M. de Jong: Any lessons or info that the Attorney, in the context of the

mail-in ballot conversation, can reveal or share with the committee

about the more recent by-election experiences in terms of percentages of

vote that arrived? Now again, by-elections are different than general

elections, and their participation rates are even worse. I’ll use that

term purposely. Any initial data or lessons in terms of the prevalence

of mail-in ballots in the by-election experiences?

Hon. N. Sharma: As noted before, by-elections are not a good source of data on

trends and uses for voting because generally the overall voting is low

in a by-election, unfortunately. The office of the Chief Electoral

Officer indicated that the uptake of mail-in ballots in the by-elections

was low, and that’s the information that I have.

M. de Jong: I wonder. The Attorney does not have to answer this now, but since

we are apparently being closely monitored in these discussions, I will

take advantage of the opportunity to send a message via the Attorney to

the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It would be actually useful

to get a

summary. I think we may have a

summary of the mail-in ballot

experience — I’m pretty sure we do — for the 2020 general

election.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

It would be interesting to know whether or not in the by-election

context the use of the mail-in ballot as a percentage of overall votes

cast returned to traditional levels for by-elections and general

elections. So if the office of the Chief Electoral Officer might be in a

position to prepare a short

summary, that would be useful. I won’t,

unless she wants to, ask the Attorney to respond to that. I will ask her

to briefly advise whether there is any significance to the replacement

of the term “secrecy envelope” with the term “secrecy

enclosure.”

Hon. N. Sharma: This is a practical change. Secrecy envelope is a folded ballot, I

guess, instead of an envelope. It’s cheaper to produce and easier to

process in terms of counting. So it’s just a new way of supporting the

process that way.

M. de Jong: I am much relieved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I meant secrecy enclosure. Sorry.

M. de Jong: Now I’m even more relieved.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: This is the provision,

section 28 of the Election Act, which

presently says, “Within 8 days after an election is called, the chief

electoral officer must publish…” a notice of election. I just wondered.

If we change that, as is proposed here, to “as soon as

possible….”

[3:30 p.m.]

There was nothing under the existing provisions that precluded the

notice from going out on day 2 or day 3 or day 4. One is automatically

inclined to think that what the Chief Electoral Officer is looking for

here is some flexibility that would mean the notice might not go out

till day 9, 10 or 11.

I’m just curious to know, in this day and age of technology and

the means, the idea of the formal notice being delayed into the second

and, maybe, third week is difficult to understand. First of all, that

doesn’t strike me as being a very good thing. Two, why would that be

necessary? What accounts for the concern that notice couldn’t go out in

the first eight days?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is very particular. The wording of the clause, “as soon as

possible,” would still indicate…. Depending on the platform or media

source, “as soon as possible,” would be different. For example, a

digital platform could go up very quickly.

The particular change is related to a concern that it’s

increasingly challenging to publish newspaper ads in affected electoral

districts within a specified time frame. So with respect to publishing

in newspapers, it allows the Chief Electoral Officer to still have the

requirement of “as soon as possible,” but deliver it, sometimes, in a

time frame that depends on the publishing dates of the particular

newspaper.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. I think I understand the part about different

platforms and different means of posting the notice. I don’t think many

of us go to the post office anymore to read what’s on the wall, but

there is still a provision for that within the act.

I’ll simply register the observation that, in this day and age,

with an agency dedicated to and geared entirely to preparation and

administration, administering the electoral process, that once the writ

is dropped, it should be possible to accommodate the statutory

requirements for notice within eight days. One hopes that this change is

not going to result in delays that extend beyond those eight

days.

Just one other question with respect to….

The Chair: On clause 5.

M. de Jong: Yeah, we’re on clause 5. Actually, that’s fine on clause

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. de Jong: Let me just cross-reference here to 41, which is being amended

here. In Bill 11, clause 7…. As I understand it, sub 3(a)(i), (ii) and

(iii) are essentially restatements of existing provisions. If that’s not

the case, I’m happy to hear it. But when I did the comparison, I thought

they were.

Then we have sub 3(b). Is this the new provision? If it is, how is

it intended to work? And with particular emphasis, a site-based voting

area, which is established under

section 80…. I went to subsection

80(4), which allows the Chief Electoral Officer to establish site-based

voting areas for the purposes of

section 77, which you then have to

cross-reference.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m trying to ascertain whether (

b) is the new provision. Then

we’re talking about applicants who reside “in a residence that is in a

site-based voting area….” What’s an example of that?

Two questions. Is this the new provision of the section, and if it

is, then what is an example of a site-based voting area where an

applicant would reside?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second

question: a residential care facility is an example.

M. de Jong: That residential care would qualify by virtue of falling within

the definition of the existing subsection 77(1) of the Election Act. Is

that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s to be considered in connection with

section 77. The district

electoral officer can establish site-based voting areas, and it’s tied

to the residence of that person.

[3:40 p.m.]

In your example of how the residential care facility would be

established as one, it is through the district electoral officer, who

can establish that as a site-based voting opportunity for the resident

of that facility.

M. de Jong: Understood and thank you. I guess part of our task, when we get

into these kinds of provisions, is to try and contemplate where a

difficulty might arise. So this next question falls into that

category.

What I think has happened with sub (

b) is in the case of a

residence site-based voting area, a residential care facility. The

verification document requirement, I’ll call them, is different than in

other circumstances where, generally, two documents are required, one of

which contains a name but also a residential address. In this provision,

there’s only a requirement for one document of a type authorized by the

Chief Electoral Officer, and that document only needs to contain the

applicant’s name.

All right, 99.9 percent of the time — I get it. That makes sense.

There’s a site-based voting opportunity at Smith Manor residential care

facility. The residents are able to vote. That’s all a good

thing.

What happens if someone shows up…? We’re talking about Elections

B.C. volunteers. They’re not residents. They don’t live there. They

don’t know who the residents are. Someone shows up, pulls out a document

with their name on it and says: “I’m here to vote.” But they’re not a

resident. What authority does the volunteer at that election table have

to say: “I’m sorry. You’re not able to vote”? They say: “Well, it’s a

site-based voting area, and here I am. I’d like to cast my

ballot.”

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Here’s the process. What would happen is once the district

electoral officer has identified a site-based voting opportunity — we’ll

say a residential care home — before the voting date, the district

electoral officer’s team will go in and verify with, say, the managers

or the staff of the residential care facility who is a resident of that

site-based voting opportunity.

That list will be verified beforehand. Then, on the example that

the member provided, where a volunteer comes or somebody comes on the

day of voting, there’ll be a list there that says: “Here’s a list of all

the residents.” The person that is voting will show something with their

name on it — not necessarily a picture or any address — and then be able

to verify that they’re on that list.

If there are any questions, then there’s a process for verifying

whether or not — just like in any other case of question marks of

identity for that individual….

M. de Jong: To be clear and to be fair, all of that is relevant if someone is

not registered and on the voting list; if they’re on the voting list

already, not an issue because they’re already there. The mechanism by

which verification would take place is helpful to know. I appreciate the

answer, and let’s carry on to clause 8, then.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: A quick question on 8(5). What’s the problem being addressed here?

It’s always interesting to see reference to the

Interpretation Act in

the context of when someone can drop off their ballots and when someone

is obliged to accept them. Was there an issue around that that this is

intended to address?

Hon. N. Sharma: It was a very particular matter that was meant to be corrected

from this provision.

During the 2020 general election, the CEO issued an order for

voting packages to be dropped off at Service B.C. locations, but the

final voting day was on a Saturday, and the Service B.C. location was

closed on that day. There were provisions in the

Interpretation Act and

the Election Act that would require these locations to accept packages

dropped off at Service B.C. locations on the first day of business

following the Saturday deadline. That would be Monday after the

election.

What this does is to bring clarity to exactly that issue, with

respect to collecting mail-in packages outside the location’s regular

office hours.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

On clause 10.

M. de Jong: We’ll take a couple of minutes on this, because it’s an issue that

has engaged our attention. I anticipate that my colleague from Saanich

North, the Third Party House Leader, either in the context of clause 10

or clause 12, I think, has some interest in these matters as

well.

[3:50 p.m.]

I indicated to the Attorney before these proceedings that I would

try to make my arguments on this issue with respect to clause 10 and not

repeat them in clause 12. And I think 24 is the other clause where the

issue presents itself again. I’ll summarize the issue and the concern.

I’ll ask the Attorney to what extent, if at all, she shares the

concern.

I somewhat anticipated what the response might be and can alert

the Attorney and the committee to the possibility of presenting a short

amendment that would address the concern of the official opposition in

this regard.

The issue here, and I understand that there is an attempt here by

the Chief Electoral Officer and by the government to resolve some

ambiguity and some uncertainty that arose around the general issue of

write-in ballots. And we talked about that earlier — that not all

mail-in ballots are write-in ballots. Many are not, but there is a

ballot that a voter is obliged to write in their voter

preference.

I’ve already acknowledged that very troubling trend that has been

going on for some decades now about a lack of voter participation. I

think that is troubling for any of us, all of us, who are involved in

the democratic process and should be of concern to all British

Columbians and all Canadians. We are endeavouring, I think, over the

course of many years now, to take steps to try and reverse that trend,

and a lot of that reveals itself with efforts to make it easier to

vote.

We have more advance polling days. We don’t all have to vote on

election day. We just talked about mail-in ballots and the ability to

vote from home and various locations and special locations — all as a

means of trying to minimize the inconvenience and the effort that people

need to make to cast their ballot in this important democratic exercise.

I’m all for that, and I don’t want to dissuade those efforts.

But there is another consideration that I think we can’t entirely

lose sight of, and that is asking of the voter that they turn their

mind, for a moment at least, to making an informed choice and cast that

ballot, that vote, responsibly. And knowing who they’re voting for seems

to me to be a not unreasonable request.

Now, historically we have acknowledged that in identifying what a

person’s voting intent is…. If they, obviously, write in the name of the

candidate in a form that is legible and can be clearly identified as

being the candidate, that obviously qualifies. We’ve gone a bit further

and said: “Okay. Well, some people may not know who the specific

candidate is, but they know the party that they want to vote

for.”

In fact, on a regular ballot, we identify a candidate and the

party. So on a regular ballot, you can see it’s Bob Smith of the New

Democratic Party or Mary Bloggs of the B.C. Liberal Party or Janet Jones

of the B.C. Green Party. Both that information….

[3:55 p.m.]

I can see the logic in saying in a write-in ballot: “All right. If

you can take one of those two bits of information, the name of the

candidate or the party, and you can write that in….” Then the Chief

Electoral Officer or the district electoral officers will say, “I have a

clear sense of who you intend to vote for,” and that vote should be

counted.

This

section and two other sections purport to go further, though,

and provide a third option. And that is to write in the name of the

leader of a party, a leader who is not likely running in that

constituency. Now, there will be one constituency that they’re running

in, for which that name would qualify as the name of the candidate. But

in the other 90-plus constituencies, that person is not running

there.

It seems to be signalling a shift, and some might say a

recognition, of leader-driven politics, but that’s not our electoral

system. We could create it if we wanted to. If that’s what we wanted to

do, we could do a radical overhaul of our electoral system, and people

could vote for the leaders of the parties and then fill in from there.

But we don’t do that. We vote for local representatives and, by

extension, local representatives who also represent political

parties.

This, I think, is going a step further, and I understand that

there is judicial consideration that is being taken into account here,

but we’re allowed to disagree with that from time to time. I think it is

a mistake, and I will go further. This will operate, I’m sure, in

different ways at different times in different elections, but I think it

bestows an unfair advantage.

It can bestow an unfair advantage on various parties in different

ways at different times, depending on people’s familiarity with the

leader of that party. I guess Premiers generally would have an advantage

in terms of name recognition. That’s true, but it wouldn’t always be the

case, in the case of a new leader or a new Premier.

All to say that the official opposition has no difficulty with the

notion that a ballot should be counted and accepted as revealing the

voter’s intent, where a write-in ballot names the candidate or names the

political party that the voter wishes to support in their

constituency.

But we are less supportive and, in fact, somewhat concerned that

we would add that third option as an incremental movement down the path

towards a form of leader-driven political identification and politics at

election time that the rest of our electoral system does not embrace,

does not represent. If that’s where we want to go, then that’s another

discussion to have.

I’ll ask the Attorney General the degree to which she either

shares my concern or doesn’t, and then, if she doesn’t, maybe what I’ll

do is put my amendment on the floor, and that can be the subject of

further discussion in the committee.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by clearly saying that this is by no means a shift in

how we perceive elections or, as the member put it, a creep into

leader-style elections. It actually was designed with the advice of the

Chief Electoral Officer and the situations that were showing up. The

member mentioned one that involved a judicial recount. That’s meant to

remedy a very specific situation. I just wanted to spend some time to

walk through that.

[4:05 p.m.]

For example, we’ve already established that a mail-in ballot that

is not an ordinary ballot with the list of all the candidates is only

available in exceptional circumstances where their nomination has not

been closed in that riding. In some circumstances, for example, one

party may not have nominated an actual candidate in that riding. So the

decision is to issue a write-in ballot for that particular voting at the

time.

With the 2019 changes to the electoral process, which will be

showing up at the next election…. The model that was already in place

was a vote anywhere model. You could go to any place and vote. There

will be on-site ballot printers. What that means is that when you show

up, somebody can print you an ordinary ballot that lists all the

candidates.

The clear issue that we were trying to remedy with this change is

really about a situation where the nomination hasn’t closed and the

decision was to send a write-in ballot. In that circumstance, what has

shown up in a digital recount at the last election is….

It starts by the idea that we always want to try to capture voter

intention, right? As the member mentioned, our goal is to have as many

people voting as possible and as many ballots that are valid counted as

possible, as long as there’s a clear voter intention. In that scenario,

what happened was that somebody wrote the name of their party and the

leader. They wrote the leader and the party. Because of the way the

legislation is structured right now, that ballot had to be not counted,

because it named the leader and the party.

This is actually just trying to fix that situation where we would

say it’s unfair to that voter, who clearly expressed their intention in

a situation where the nomination process was not finished in their

riding. It’s a very particular amendment that helps us make sure that

we’re being fair to the voters and their intention.

M. de Jong: The Attorney’s explanation or rationale doesn’t surprise me, and I

didn’t harbour any great hope that I was going to persuade her

otherwise.

I think this is a case where there is a disagreement. Where the

Attorney says the intention is not to further enhance the notion of

leader-driven politics or an electoral process that focuses on party

leaders as opposed to local candidates, I think there is a group of us

who believe that even if that’s not the intention, that is going to be

the result.

The Attorney’s partial answer is: “And besides, this will only

happen very rarely.” All right, we’ll get to sections later where I’ll

talk about my own electoral experience and the difference a couple of

votes can make to one’s life and political destiny. So I’m not sure that

I place a great deal of stock in the notion that it doesn’t happen that

often.

I don’t think it is unreasonable, in the electoral system that we

have, to say to a voter: “You should know the name of the person you’re

voting for. We’ll make allowance for the fact that you might not, by

allowing you to write in the name of the party, and the candidate for

that party will get the benefit of your vote.”

But to say, “All we will require from you is the name of the

leader, whose name you have seen, probably repeatedly, on the newscasts,

and that will be sufficient to identify for us your intention,” and

someone else entirely will receive the benefit of that — that is, the

local candidate — is a step that the official opposition is hesitant to

take.

The amendment I’ll table — I have a copy for the Attorney as well

— simply deletes the phrase “or leader of the registered political party

of the candidate.” So that’s what it does.

I think, having taken some time to make my argument and alert the

Attorney and the committee to the concerns of the official opposition,

what I’ll do is invite any initial response. I know there are members

and the House Leader for the Third Party that have some thoughts and

submissions on the point as well.

The Chair: We are going to take a short recess to distribute the

amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order, and the amendment is

in order.

I’d like to recognize the member from Abbotsford West to move

the motion.

M. de Jong: I’ll simply move the amendment.

[ CLAUSE 10, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 86 (5) is repealed and the

following substituted:

(5) Write-in ballots must be prepared in the form

prescribed by regulation to permit the voter to vote by writing in the

name of the candidate ,

or registered political party of the candidate or leader

of the registered political party of the candidate for whom

the individual wishes to vote.]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Speaking to the amendment, I appreciate the member from the

official opposition for raising it. It’s a concern that we also share in

the Third Party, and I think that it’s a concern, actually, that should

be shared across all parts of this House.

I want to read into the record from page 58 of the judicial

recount from the 2020 provincial election in the electoral district of

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. There was a judicial recount there.

Section

209 of this reads the following:

“Elections B.C. noted, properly, that in our Westminster

parliamentary system, voters are not voting as one would for a president

in a republic, in a single national election. Instead, a voter votes for

their local representative in the Legislature; those members in turn may

decide to change the leader of their caucus or of the Legislature. There

are 87 separate elections in British Columbia, one for each electoral

district, rather than a single election. In this context, a voter may

well vote based on the individual rather than the party, and a vote for

an individual candidate in the mistaken belief that he or she is running

in the voter’s electoral district should not automatically transfer the

vote to the actual candidate for that party in the electoral

district.”

It appears that what happened here is that during this judicial

recount that happened, Elections B.C. came to the table with this advice

to the judge that was taking a look at this. It should be noted that it

was the position that was taken by the Third Party, the B.C. Green

Party, as well, that any ballot that had the leader’s name written on it

should just be outright rejected. It did not have either the party or

the candidate that was running in that election.

I used the example, when I was speaking at second reading to this

bill, of the situation that occurred in my riding where, actually, the

situation that the Attorney General outlined occurred. It took the

government, who called the election, a couple of weeks in order to

locate a candidate to represent them in that election. For the first

couple of weeks of that snap election, there was a proliferation of the

Premier’s signs in my riding showing up all over the place, presumably

to take the place of the candidate that had yet to be determined. Even

after the candidate had been determined, perhaps they took the place of

the candidate who wasn’t able to get their signs printed early in the

writ.

It served a couple of purposes. There’s no doubt that at that

time, the Premier, the leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, was very

popular. So from that perspective, you can understand why it would be

that a political party that has a popular Premier would want to do that.

But another outcome of that was that it was terribly confusing for the

electorate. Even people who had been paying close attention to what was

going on, noting…. I live in the capital region. My riding is in the

capital region. It’s neighbouring to Langford–Juan de Fuca. People were

legiti­mately confused about what was happening.

[4:25 p.m.]

Did the Premier, at the time, move to Saanich North and the

Islands, and was he running in Saanich North and the Islands? Frankly,

at that time, that was a confusion that I spent little time, at that

point, concerned about. My concern was letting people know who I was and

who I was encouraging them to vote for. At that point, it wasn’t the

Premier.

But you know, I think what is happening here is that we are,

indeed, creeping towards a scenario where we are elevating the leader

into a role they don’t have any business being in — more of a

presidential role than the one they play. There is no doubt that the

most popular name in politics will always be, or will soon be, the

person who is the Premier that we hear about and know who that person

is. That is giving an advantage. It is, indeed, actually stepping

outside, as Elections B.C. noted in the judicial recount, the

parliamentary system of government that we have established in this

province.

When I first began to look at whether or not I wanted to move from

local government to the provincial government and maybe run as an MLA,

one of the first things that I considered was the potential of running

as an independent. I was curious about that. So I started to look into

what that would mean.

I learned that over the decades — despite the system that we have,

with 87 or whatever the number of ridings there are elections that are

held on election day in B.C. — it had become more and more difficult to

even run in this province without being a member of a political

party.

There was a time in this province where political parties didn’t

exist. We now have the creeping profile of the political party. I

understand, and I’m not arguing against, having the political party as

one of the options on the ballot. But just as that has crept into our

system, I think this is now the next stage of this, which is to

basically fold all of the elections under one name.

We see the name of every political leader on every sign across the

province as part of the team of this individual, whichever leader it is.

I’m going to — absolutely, and I think with no hesitation — be

supporting this amendment because, frankly, it’s the right thing to do.

I’m quite disappointed that the government has brought this amendment to

include the leader’s name on a ballot anywhere in the province as an

acceptable replacement to the actual person who will be representing,

the actual person who will be on the other end of the emails, who will

be serving the constituency in that particular riding.

What I’ve experienced is that constituents that I have who write

to the Premier, who write to the leader of the political party that is

in power, very rarely do they get a response back. It is always going to

be the constituency MLA, the MLA that is part of that constituency. That

is who their representative is. That’s who is responsible for those

constituents. As much as possible, I think we need to guard and defend

that relationship that the voter has — the citizen, the constituent has

— with their member of this Legislature.

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for proposing the amendment and also

the House Leader of the Third Party for the words. We won’t be able to

support the amendment today, and I’ve outlined the reasons before. I

just want to say that I agree with the belief in the values of local

decision-making and local representation that were expressed

today.

The changes we’re making to the Election Act under this bill were

recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and independent of us.

The reasons for it are very exceptional circumstances.

[4:30 p.m.]

We put this amendment in the context of a declining use of a

write-in ballot and better technology and better availability for

printing off an ordinary ballot, which will do what the member suggests,

listing off the candidates and the party.

In the exceptional circumstance of a write-in ballot…. So we’re

already in the category of a situation where there are not nominated

candidates, so the nomination process has not been finished in that

riding, and the decision has been to send in written ballots. And then I

think the judicial guidance and certainly the Chief Electoral guidance

is that you, and I share this view, should be driven by voter intent in

those exceptional circumstances.

The vast majority of ballots are going to be ordinary ballots that

list exactly who the candidates are in their party. And that’s

increasing, as I mentioned before, because we will actually have

printers at stations that can print ordinary ballots on call. So we’re

strengthening the process of that. But in these exceptional

circumstances, my view is that voter intent should be

analyzed.

If a voter in the circumstance that the judge decided on, where

they wrote in the name of the leader and the party, the fact that that

was rejected because the leader’s name was there would be probably

shocking to that individual, right? They felt that in a situation where

they were meant to write in something, because they didn’t have

nominated candidates in that riding and they wrote in the leader of the

party, that their voter intent would be rejected and their vote not be

counted.

The reason for those amendments are squarely in this category and

are supported not only by the Chief Electoral Officer but guidance we’ve

also gotten from courts on mail-in ballots when it comes to voter

intent. So for those reasons, I don’t support the amendments.

The Chair: Seeing no further comments, the question is on the amendment

provided by the member for Abbotsford West.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 approved on division.

Clause 11 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 12 pass?

Sorry, member for Abbotsford West.

On clause 12.

M. de Jong: No need to be sorry till you hear what I have to say, Madam

Chair.

Well, look, I had indicated to the Attorney and to the committee

the issue that the member for Saanich North and I have spoken to, and

the Attorney for that matter, reveals itself in clause 10, clause 12

and, I believe, clause 24. I don’t intend to repeat all of the arguments

that I have advanced in support of my amendment that has just been

defeated on clause 10.

I do, however, wish to table a similar amendment with respect to

clause 12, which seeks to eliminate what would be sub 2(c), the

reference to the name of the leader of the registered political party of

a candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote. I have provided that

in written form. I think the table has had an opportunity to make copies

of it. I hope members that require a copy have it.

Suffice to say it is advanced to accomplish the same purpose and

for the same reasons as the amendment that was proposed with respect to

clause 10. And I so move that amendment.

[ CLAUSE 12, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 91 (2) is repealed and the

following substituted:

(2) In the case of a write-in ballot, an individual votes

by writing in the blank space provided on the ballot

(

a) the name of the candidate for whom the voter wishes to

vote,

(

b) the name of the registered political party of the

candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote, or

(

c) the name of the leader of the registered

political party of a candidate for whom the individual wishes to

vote. ]

On the amendment.

[4:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Abbotsford West for the further

opportunity, I guess, just to raise the point that I still support the

initiative that was started a few minutes ago. I still support it to

remove the option of putting the leader’s name.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think it’s important to highlight what was said by Elections

B.C. in the judicial recount, and that was that “a voter votes for their

local representative in the Legislature. Those members, in turn, may

decide to change the leader of their caucus or of the Legislature.” That

could happen at any time in the electoral process. In fact, the

electoral process is a challenging time, and lots of things can happen

and can play out.

The idea of voter intent, as the Attorney General outlined…. I

guess the challenge I have with that is that when you’re putting another

individual’s name down, it’s different than putting a political party

down. There is a difference in that. I think it’s important to

acknowledge that. Again, Elections B.C. highlighted in the judicial

recount the reality that that voter could very well be intending on

voting for the New Democrat Party, could be putting the name of the

leader of the New Democratic Party in the ballot instead of the NDP, and

then that individual is no longer the leader of that political party

when the election day rolls around.

Again, we’re talking about, as the Attorney General pointed out, a

rather nuanced and declining situation. Here’s another situation that is

fairly nuanced and may only happen once, but the reality is that we have

to take this into consideration: that on that election day, that voter’s

intention will no longer be available, will not be an option because of

the unlikely scenario that that leader is no longer the leader of the

political party at the time that the election is held.

The reality is that if it’s about voter intention, then we need to

be clear to the voters. “Write the name of your local candidate, and if

there is no local candidate, then write the name of the political party

that you are most closely affiliated or aligned with that you’d like to

see have the representative in that area.” Other than that, for the sake

of judicial recounts and for the sake of clarity, I think that’s where

we need to end it. And that’s the reason why I’m supporting this

amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to say I also appreciate, again, the intent and the

discussion that we’re having here today. But for similar reasons, as I

mentioned for the previous amendment, I don’t support these

amendments.

[4:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I call the vote on the amendment

to clause 12, put forward by the member for Abbotsford

West.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 approved on division.

On clause 13.

M. de Jong: Two things here, clause 13 and clause 14. My understanding is that

13 refers to…. I’m going to call it an original mail-in ballot. And then

clause 14 refers to a replacement, an application for a replacement in

the event that the original has been lost or otherwise been disfigured

or is no longer useable.

But if I’m correct in that, then maybe the more important question

is: is this a product of a challenge that emerged in the 2020 election?

My understanding is that. And if it is, does…? The language in the

section suggests that it will be left entirely to the Chief Electoral

Officer or district electoral officer to determine when there is

insufficient time to forward either an original ballot package or a

replacement mail-in ballot package. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: This proposed amendment is consequential to the introduction of

the authorized drop-off locations, which I think, as the member was

talking about…. It provides election officials to continue to have clear

authority to not provide a package if there’s no point in doing so. So

it would be beyond the timeline of the election to provide

it.

M. de Jong: Right. Okay, I understand, but, I mean, the language….

So the two officers are not required to provide a mail-in voting

package if they deem there’s insufficient time for the mail-in voting

package to be received. What does that translate into, practically? For

example, an application…. What drives that? Is it…?

If someone submits an application for them to have a mail-in

ballot package mailed to them one day before the final day for returning

it, that would suggest that’s not going to happen. If, however, they

were to turn up at the district returning office and say: “Can I have…?”

They could presumably do that up to a few hours before the end of voting

or certainly the day before voting.

I feel like asking: what goes into the consideration? The short

answer seems to be whatever the district electoral officer or Chief

Electoral Officer decide goes into that consideration. So that’s what

I’m seeking confirmation for. It is entirely up to those officials as to

what they determine to be sufficient or insufficient time.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll just start by saying that this is not a new authority. It’s

authority that’s already existed. And it is discretionary, as the member

suggests, but it is bound by a consideration of insufficient time for

the mail-in package. So that, obviously, is a consideration that they

must view in that particular request.

Like, for example, if the request was for a mail-in ballot a few

days before election for an international voting opportunity, then

obviously that wouldn’t make it in the time for the election. So it is

discretionary in a broad sense but also bound by the idea that it’s

insufficient time — right? — for the mail-in package to be received. And

it’s in the context of all the other opportunities to vote for that

individual.

[4:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can a person attend at a district returning office and pick up a

mail-in voting package?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, they can. It’s rarely declined, I’m told, in practice. Also,

if somebody comes in to request a mail-in ballot on site, they can

receive it. I mentioned before about the on-site printing opportunity

that we have as well, with ballots.

M. de Jong: With the added provision now, the confirmed authority for,

whatever we called it, a defined term in

section 1, the “authorized

drop-off location”…. Is the intention here, practically, that someone, a

day before the final…?

We have advance polling. Then there’s usually a bit of a gap, and

then we have the final polling day. If someone doesn’t vote in the

advance poll because they assume they’re going to be here for the main

polling day and then discovers, at the last minute, that they’re going

to be called out of town…. They haven’t voted in the advance poll. They

can’t vote on election day.

Will this operate in a way that allows them, the day before

election day, to attend at a district returning office, get a mail-in

package and then immediately drop it off?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, that’s the idea: to provide as many voting opportunities as

possible. In the scenario described by the member, that mail-in ballot

could be picked up. Then, obviously…. We now have, if this passes,

expanded places for that mail-in ballot to be dropped off.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

M. de Jong: Clause 16 amends

section 106 of the existing Election Act and,

obviously, speaks of…. Sorry, it amends

section 107 of the Election

Act.

I’m going to use this as a surrogate to ask a question that a

number of people have asked me, in terms of the receipt of mail-in

voting packages, rooted in the knowledge that the incidence of mail-in

ballots…. We’ll discover whether they continue to rise or whether 2020

was an anomaly for reasons that we are all familiar with.

The question is this. This is a

section that relates to the

receipt of a mail-in voting package. This might be a question that is of

more interest to those who are directly involved in electoral contests

than the general public, but I’ll ask it anyway.

Over the years, in terms of reporting the results of an election….

We have voting districts, constituencies, and then, within them, we have

polling districts, polling divisions. I can’t even remember what the

term is — polling districts. Depending on the size, there can be

hundreds of them in some constituencies.

It’s a breakdown. I’m not sure most people know which numbered

poll they’re in, but it does guide them to where they vote. It’s kind of

an organizational subdivision. Political organizations, though, tend to

place a fair bit of stock in that as a way of tracking who is doing

what, where.

In the past, people have received those breakdowns. Then,

somewhere at the bottom of the table, is the one that says mail-in

ballots. Historically the number has been quite low, and it gets added

in there.

[4:55 p.m.]

If the number of mail-in ballots grows, and 2020 was an example of

how it could, can the Attorney advise, with the assistance of perhaps

advice from Elections B.C.: are mail-in ballots assigned to a poll? Does

the capacity exist, upon receipt of a mail-in ballot, to assign them to

a poll?

They should have an address. I mean, the voter has to establish

that they are qualified to vote in that constituency. So they have to

have an address in that constituency. Are they assigned…? Are there

challenges associated with assigning that vote to a poll in the way that

other ballots are assigned to a poll in an election?

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay, a three-part answer.

There’s no requirement, under the Election Act, for the voting

area to be tied to the mail-in ballots, in terms of the residence of the

voters. The CEO does have the authority, under

section 121, to do that,

to tie the mail-in ballots in with the…. I think the term used in the

act is “voting area.” So polling district, to the member’s

language.

However, Elections B.C. has advised…. It would add considerable

operational complexity to count mail-in ballots by voting area and could

delay the preparation and delivery of packages to voters or the initial

and final counts. So their operational decision has been not to use the

power given to them to do that.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask the Attorney: does she have any views on whether it would

be advisable for mail-in ballots to be tabulated in accordance with the

voting area, or polling area, that the voter resides in? I will say that

I am, via this discussion and those who are monitoring, making the pitch

for why I think that might be a worthwhile thing to do.

Does the Attorney have any position she would share on the wisdom

of ensuring that mail-in ballots, like every other ballot, are assigned

to a polling area within a constituency?

Hon. N. Sharma: In terms of my personal view on it, I would say…. I take the

guidance of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of the impracticability

of administering such a system.

My personal view is that like the contents of this bill, we need

to make it as…. We need to direct our resources towards making voting as

easy and accessible as possible, in many different ways. I would prefer

that Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral Officer focus our resources

on that, rather than, potentially, the operational expenses and

administration challenges of fulfilling that request.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Thank you to the Attorney.

Insofar as other members of the committee may have views on this

that they wish to communicate to the Chief Electoral Officer, I presume

they are free to do so and may wish to engage the Chief Electoral

Officer when he next appears, for example, before the Public Accounts or

budgetary committees to explore to what degree it is practicable or

possible to do so.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. de Jong: When would this particular provision…? We’re in sub 108(4). I

mean, 108 deals with special provisions for mail-in voting packages for

armed forces and others. Sub 108(4), which is amended here, is a

specific exception to what is already an exception. When would this be

used?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is specifically related to the real life circumstances when

it comes to armed forces. Just to give a practical example of how this

would show up. Normally speaking, before the amendments, you would have

to provide a photocopy of your ID along with the package of a mail-in

ballot. What this allows is for the election officials — for example, if

you’re on a naval ship — that are appointed to verify ID in different

ways, specifically for mail-in ballots for this group of

people.

[5:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Yeah, I got the Canadian Forces example. Any other circumstances

that the Attorney can think of that would give rise to using this as a

tool for verification or identification?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the member is talking about the

section in 108 that talks

about any other specific class of individuals.

We’ve just verified with the team at the Chief Electoral Officer’s

office that they’re not aware of any other groups that would be in that

category that have been used today.

Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. de Jong: We’re now at clause 109.01 of the act. This relates to individuals

who need assistance. I won’t try to describe all of the circumstances

applicable to that. My question is this, with respect to the proposed

(b.1) amendment where it says, “write the individual’s name on the

certification envelope of the voter’s mail-in voting package”: whose

name? Is it the name of the voter, or the name of the person assisting

the voter?

Hon. N. Sharma: The individual of the person who is assisting the

voter.

Clauses 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On clause 24.

M. de Jong: This takes us to 24 and represents the final provision of Bill 11

that references the change around explicitly authorizing the use of a

party leader’s name as a way to determine voter intent.

I have made the arguments on behalf of the official opposition for

why we believe that is ultimately a mistake.

I have presented the table with a copy of my proposed amendment to

clause 24, which in effect deletes sub (

b) in its entirety, which is a

provision that includes the reference to a party leader’s name. I will

move that amendment and ask that it be distributed.

The Chair: The amendment has been distributed, and it’s in order. So

we’re speaking to the amendment.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I will move the amendment and direct the Attorney’s and

committee’s attention to the comments I made previously with respect to

similar amendments in clauses 10 and 12.

[ CLAUSE 24, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 123 is

amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following

paragraph:

(

h) the ballot is a write-in ballot marked for both a

registered political party and the leader of the registered political

party, but the name of the person on the ballot is not the name of the

leader of the registered political

party. , and

(

b) in subsection (3) by adding the following

paragraphs:

(b.1) the name of the leader of a registered political

party marked in accordance with

section 91 (2);

(

d) an indication of the name of the leader of the

registered political party of the candidate marked on the ballot in

accordance with

section 91 (2) that, although misspelled or

abbreviated, clearly indicates the intention of the

voter. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: For the reasons that we stated previously for the other amendments

moved by this member, we don’t support the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24 approved on division.

Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Powell River should keep his groans to himself or at least extend

the courtesy of listening to what I say before groaning.

Well, look. There is, I think, a relevant question for the

Attorney about clause 31. That is: is there a substantive change to the

basis for requesting a recount in a close election? Or is it still an

automatic entitlement if the result is within 100 votes?

I will confess to taking a certain measure of pride in this

provision since it was the result of the circumstances that led to my

arrival in this place. But be that as it may, is there any substantive

change that, in effect, says a candidate has an automatic right to a

recount in circumstances where the difference between first and second

is less than 100 votes?

Hon. N. Sharma: No, it’s not a substantive change. It’s more of a correction. It

clarifies that no candidate is declared elected until after the final

count.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Sharma: What I said was no candidate is

declared elected until after the final count.

Clauses 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

On clause 36.

M. de Jong: I just wanted to make sure that I and others on the committee

properly understood the significance of the changes being contemplated

by the amendments to

section 231. Are we…?

[5:15 p.m.]

Let’s put this in practical terms. We are all familiar with the

notion of an election sign and an election pamphlet and the obligation

that those materials include certain contact information for a financial

agent or a sponsor. Is the upshot of the changes in 36 simply to say:

“Whilst heretofore that had to be a phone number contact, we, Elections

B.C., will now recognize an email as a sufficient form of

contact”?

This is my way of asking…. The intent here, it seems to me, has

not changed in terms of providing contact information. The form that

that contact information can take has changed or been expanded. Is that

about the size of it?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then in sub (

e) of that same clause 36, there is the added

provision: must meet “any form and content requirements established by

the chief electoral officer by regulation.” Doesn’t the Chief Electoral

Officer already have that authority?

Hon. N. Sharma: No. It doesn’t clearly, as the act is prior to these, if these

amendments pass, give the Chief Electoral Officer that authority.

Subsection (

e) would just clarify or make it easier. If there are

evolving ways of displaying the correct specifics of contact

information, that could adapt over time.

Clauses 36 and 37 approved.

On clause 38.

M. de Jong: On clause 38, the Attorney and the government are purporting to

create, on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer and the chief electoral

office, I take it, a new tool for use by that office in certain

circumstances. Can the Attorney take a moment and describe for the

committee the circumstances that have emerged that gave rise to the

request and the government’s decision to create this new tool and the

circumstances in which it is intended to be used and how

used?

Hon. N. Sharma: The objective of this

section is to give the CEO clear authority,

that’s supported by the most serious penalty in the act, to require

digital platforms to take necessary steps to remove non-compliant

election advertising. Obviously, it also serves the goal of

transparency.

M. de Jong: Is it a complaints-driven process?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s both the Chief Electoral Officer and the team monitoring and

also complaint driven.

[5:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: That monitoring function, it strikes me, could be pretty onerous

insofar as the plethora of different vehicles and avenues for

advertising around elections is. Has the Attorney secured, from the

Chief Electoral Officer, some indication as to what fully monitoring all

of that activity is going to involve, in terms of resources for that

office?

Hon. N. Sharma: To start with, they already monitor and oversee third-party

advertising as part of their role. What this addition will do is give

them powers of takedown and penalties to enforce that. The assurance

that we’re getting is that they wouldn’t be asking also for powers they

weren’t able to do. This is complementary to tools they already have, in

overseeing third-party advertising and advertising that’s noncompliant,

and it gives them a better ability to take them down and

penalize.

M. de Jong: It sounds like the Attorney is advising the committee that even

today there is a division within the Elections B.C. office that is

monitoring advertising in both election periods and pre-campaign

periods, and monitoring that to determine compliance with the provisions

of the act. Is that the case? Is there a separate division? Are there

people assigned within Elections B.C. to the task of monitoring the

advertising that would be captured by the provisions of clause

38?

Hon. N. Sharma: There are many ways today with technology to use…. I’m advised by

their office that they have software that helps them to monitor it. In

situations where an election is going on, they also have the ability to

have third parties be part of the oversight, to add to capacity if

that’s needed. But I think they really wanted this to have tools to

actually penalize people that are not in compliance.

M. de Jong: Sorry, third parties that assist them in monitoring

election-related advertising and communications? That’s interesting. Who

would that be?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m advised by their office that there are search companies or, I

guess, organizations that specialize in providing this type of

monitoring oversight. So if they need to have extra capacity, they can

do that.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: If a person has purchased election advertising or advertising in

the pre-campaign period, is it true, therefore, that that advertisement,

that communication, is automatically being monitored by Elections B.C.

for compliance? Is that how this works?

Hon. N. Sharma: Elections B.C. already monitors compliance in election

advertising. That’s a function they already have. This adds better,

clear authority for compliance mechanisms. Also, there’s the

complaint-driven side. Political parties and other stakeholders in the

election are monitoring that stuff and can bring complaints forward if

they see it.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. Well, I understand the part about wanting to secure

an enforcement mechanism, and the provisions deal with the Chief

Electoral Officer providing notice to take certain measures, stop

transmissions and remove.

I, though, am a bit surprised to learn that there is this

extensive monitoring capacity in place now. I really did think that some

of this, even today, was a complaints-driven process. But it sounds like

what the Attorney is saying today is that the capacity to monitor any of

the advertising that would be captured under 231 and 231.01 and 231.02,

and the subject of enforcement proceedings, already exists, and there

won’t be any requirement on the part of Elections B.C. to seek

additional resources to perform that function. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: If there are…. First of all, the CEO and that office is tasked

with implementing the legislation. That’s clear statutory authority. If

there are any issues in staffing or requirements that they might need to

do so, then I would expect them to come to the government service

committee or talk to us about that. Right now we have assurances that

they’re able to fulfil the duties under this act.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. I’m not meaning to belabour this, but it’s sort of a

fundamental tenet of what we do here. If someone comes in search of

legal authority to do certain things, we tend to want to ask how much

that’s going to cost. The advice we’re getting from the Attorney is that

it shouldn’t cost anything more because she hasn’t been asked for

anything more, as the minister responsible for the act.

I must confess, I was a bit surprised to hear that Elections B.C.

has this extensive monitoring capacity now. I guess that’s a good thing.

I guess people will be interested to hear, when they take out an ad in

support of their favourite candidate or cause, that it’s being monitored

by Elections B.C. for compliance. It’s relevant because…. Well, I’ll say

it.

[5:30 p.m.]

If the Chief Electoral Officer shows up in a few months and says

to the appropriate committee of the House, “Oh, by the way, thanks for

passing my legislation. I need an extra 5 million bucks,” then we’d

better hear about that now and not as a surprise then. I know they’re

monitoring this over at Elections B.C. headquarters, so now is the time

to communicate the need for additional resources, not five months from

now.

Hon. N. Sharma: One of the things that’s happened in the past, with the 2019

amendments and previous reports, is that sometimes the Chief Electoral

Officer reports there is a budgetary consideration of the implications

of implementing the recommendations.

In the reports that we are talking about today that led to the

changes that we…. There was no such analysis. I’m currently not aware of

any budgetary constraints in administering the changes that we’re posing

to the act. And of course, it’s the Chief Electoral Officer’s duty to

implement. If they do arise, I would fully expect him and his team to

come and ask the appropriate government committee for further

resources.

M. de Jong: Right. I’ll go one step further, though. And again, I’ll say this

politely and with respect. I think the Chief Electoral Officer and the

Attorney should anticipate, when bringing forward these provisions, that

a logical question from members of the committee is at some point going

to be: “And how much does it cost?”

I have the Attorney’s information that, to her knowledge, the

Chief Electoral Officer has what he requires to fulfil the obligations

and to make use of these provisions. But we’ll file that away, and

hopefully, it’s correct. We’ll see what happens down the

road.

Let’s just take a moment to…. In terms of the enforcement powers

that are being created here, I take it the idea is that the Chief

Electoral Officer would have specific statutory authority to order a

cessation of transmission of election advertising. Help me with this,

though, if the Attorney can.

So there’s the power vis-à-vis the sponsor, the agency that has

created and is advancing the advertising. What is the authority that the

legislation grants vis-à-vis, for example, the platform, in the case of

advertising is being transmitted?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to add to the previous discussion. Just a reminder that

actually the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections B.C. already monitors

third-party advertising — that includes on different platforms. What

this does is give them a takedown provision or a takedown power, just to

help with the discussion of whether they’re able to and the budgetary

considerations.

member’s question, notice can be provided to the sponsor and to the

platform of a violation under these sections.

M. de Jong: We had a similar conversation, seems like a little while ago now,

with respect to another piece of legislation: intimate images. And, in

that case, we were discussing the ability of a tribunal, the CRT or the

Provincial Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia, to have

orders enforced. And, I think, at one point, I thought the Attorney

provided a very forthright and honest answer about the abilities and

sometimes the limitations of having orders from B.C. tribunals enforced

internationally — not so much an issue nationally, but sometimes

internationally, depending on where the headquarters for a platform

are.

In this case, we’re talking about a statutory officer of the B.C.

Legislative Assembly, important by any definition. But what can the

Attorney offer by way of assurance that having created this power that

these platforms will take seriously and feel compelled to abide by a

decision, an order, of the Chief Electoral Officer of B.C.?

Hon. N. Sharma: First of all, there’s a penalty in this that’s the high